Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Al Rx
    This case concerns whether supervisors of the National Sugar Refineries Corporation Batangas Sugar Refinery are considered managerial employees who are no longer entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the supervisors, as officers or members of the managerial staff after being reclassified under new job levels through a job evaluation program, are no longer covered by labor laws providing such benefits. The promotion of employees is recognized as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Al Rx
    140 views3 pages
    This case concerns whether supervisors of the National Sugar Refineries Corporation Batangas Sugar Refinery are considered managerial employees who are no longer entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the supervisors, as officers or members of the managerial staff after being reclassified under new job levels through a job evaluation program, are no longer covered by labor laws providing such benefits. The promotion of employees is recognized as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns whether supervisors of the National Sugar Refineries Corporation Batangas Sugar Refinery are considered managerial employees who are no longer entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the supervisors, as officers or members of the managerial staff after being reclassified under new job levels through a job evaluation program, are no longer covered by labor laws providing such benefits. The promotion of employees is recognized as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    140 views3 pages

    National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Al Rx
    This case concerns whether supervisors of the National Sugar Refineries Corporation Batangas Sugar Refinery are considered managerial employees who are no longer entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the supervisors, as officers or members of the managerial staff after being reclassified under new job levels through a job evaluation program, are no longer covered by labor laws providing such benefits. The promotion of employees is recognized as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    National Sugar Refneries Corp v.

    NLRC
    Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of
    the case cited. Xie xie
    !.R. No. "#"$%" &arch '() "**+
    N,-./N,L S0!,R R12.N1R.1S C/R3/R,-./N) petitioner) vs. N,-./N,L L,4/R
    R1L,-./NS C/&&.SS./N and N4SR S031R5.S/R6 0N./N) 73,C.809 -0C3)
    respondents.
    2acts:
    3etitioner National Sugar Refneries Corporation 7N,S0R12C/9) a corporation ;hich
    is full< o;ned and controlled b< the !overnment) operates three 7+9 sugar refneries
    located at 4u=idnon) .loilo and 4atangas. 3rivate respondent union represents the
    former supervisors of the N,S0R12C/ 4atangas Sugar Refner<.
    .n "*>>) petitioner implemented a ?ob 1valuation 7?19 3rogram a@ecting all
    emplo<ees) from ran=AandAfle to department heads. 8e glean from the records that
    for about ten <ears prior to the ?1 3rogram) the members of respondent union ;ere
    treated in the same manner as ran=Aand fle emplo<ees. ,s such) the< used to be
    paid overtime) rest da< and holida< pa< pursuant to the provisions of ,rticles >$) *+
    and *( of the Labor Code as amended.
    8ith the implementation of the ?1 3rogram) members of respondent union ;ere reA
    classifed under levels SAB to SA> ;hich are considered managerial sta@ for purposes
    of compensation and benefts.
    .n &a< "**#) petitioner N,S0R12C/ recognized herein respondent union) ;hich ;as
    organized pursuant to Republic ,ct N/. %$"B allo;ing supervisor< emplo<ees to
    form their o;n unions) as the bargaining representative of all the supervisor<
    emplo<ees at the N,S0R12C/ 4atangas Sugar Refner<.
    .n ?une "**#) the members of herein respondent union fled a complainant ;ith the
    executive labor arbiter for nonApa<ment of overtime) rest da< and holida< pa<
    allegedl< in violation of ,rticle "## of the Labor Code.
    .n "**") 1xecutive Labor ,rbiter 3ido directed N,S0R12C/ to pa< for the ;ages
    complained of.
    /n appeal) in a decision promulgated on ?ul< "**") respondent National Labor
    Relations Commission 7NLRC9 aCrmed the decision of the labor arbiter on the
    ground that the members of respondent union are not managerial emplo<ees) and)
    therefore) the< are entitled to overtime) rest da< and holida< pa<. Respondent NLRC
    declared that these supervisor< emplo<ees are merel< exercising recommendator<
    po;ers subDect to the evaluation) revie; and fnal action b< their department heads.
    .ssue:
    8EN the Supervisors are considered &anagerial 1mplo<ees and should no longer
    receive overtime) rest da< and holida< pa<.
    Ruling:
    6es
    Ratio:
    F,rt. >' Coverage. G -he provisions of this title shall appl< to emplo<ees in all
    establishments and underta=ings ;hether for proft or not) but not to government
    emplo<ees) managerial emplo<ees) feld personnel) members of the famil< of the
    emplo<er ;ho are dependent on him for support) domestic helpers) persons in the
    personal service of another) and ;or=ers ;ho are paid b< results as determined b<
    the Secretar< of Labor in ,ppropriate regulations.
    F,s used herein) Hmanagerial emplo<eesH refer to those ;hose primar< dut< consists
    of the management of the establishment in ;hich the< are emplo<ed or of a
    department or subdivision thereof) and to other oCcers or members of the
    managerial [email protected] 71mphasis supplied.9
    .t is the submission of petitioner that ;hile the members of respondent union) as
    supervisors) ma< not be occup<ing managerial positions) the< are clearl< oCcers or
    members of the managerial sta@ because the< meet all the conditions prescribed b<
    la; and) hence) the< are not entitled to overtime) rest da<.
    Iuintessentiall<) ;ith the promotion of the union members) the< are no longer
    entitled to the benefts ;hich attach and pertain exclusivel< to their positions.
    1ntitlement to the benefts provided for b< la; reJuires prior compliance ;ith the
    conditions set forth therein. 8ith the promotion of the members of respondent
    union) the< occupied positions ;hich no longer met the reJuirements imposed b<
    la;. -heir assumption of these positions removed them from the coverage of the
    la;) ergo) their exemption therefrom.
    ,s correctl< pointed out b< petitioner) if the union members reall< ;anted to
    continue receiving the benefts ;hich attach to their former positions) there ;as
    nothing to prevent them from refusing to accept their promotions and their
    corresponding benefts. ,s the sa<ing goes b<) the< could not) as a simple matter of
    la; and fairness) get the best of both ;orlds at the expense of N,S0R12C/.
    3romotion of its emplo<ees is one of the Durisprudentiall<Arecognized exclusive
    prerogatives of management) provided it is done in good faith. .n the case at bar)
    private respondent union has miserabl< failed to convince this Court that the
    petitioner acted implementing the ?1 3rogram. -here is no sho;ing that the ?1
    3rogram ;as intended to circumvent the la; and deprive the members of
    respondent union of the benefts the< used to receive.

    You might also like